Another inconvenient truth – 2012 US tornado count well below normal

Somewhere, weepy Bill McKibben is weeping and Al Gore is raging, because they won’t be able to say “2012, the hottest year ever, caused more tornadoes” So much for “dirty weather” Heh.

The NOAA Storm Prediction Center just updated their 2012 tornado count graph to the end of November. While the year is not over, the average number of 25 tornadoes expected in December (or lower if the below normal trend holds) would suggest that 2012 will end with well below normal tornado activity.

NOAA SPC’s Greg Carbin writes:

After a busy start, tornado events in the U.S. in 2012 have dropped well below the expected norm. The preliminary total of 886 tornadoes through 30 November 2012 is nearly 400 tornadoes below what might be expected in a “normal” year.

The chart above shows that at this time in 2011, the annual running total was about 400 tornadoes *above* normal; a mirror opposite of 2012.

The chart is meant to depict the dramatic variability that can occur in tornado numbers from one year to the next. On average about 25 tornadoes occur during the month of December based on data from the last 30 years. Click for full image or see the detailed written summary to date below.

Information about the tornadoes of 2012 (to-date) and comparison with other years and events. (Click image for pdf version.)

The chart above shows that at this time in 2011, the annual running total was about 400 tornadoes *above* normal; a mirror opposite of 2012.
That is very interesting since global temperatures were very similar. With regards to Hadcrut4 for example, the average for the first ten months of the year is 0.443. This would rank 9th if it stayed this way. I do not see how it will get above 9th place since the average for the last two months would need to be 0.653 to rise to 8th place. The 2011 anomaly at 0.399 puts 2011 in 12th place. The other data sets show similar trends. How do the warmists explain this?

They’re going to say it anyway ! and will be believed by the obama drones.
When will you get it that facts dont matter anymore? The lefts answer to inconvenient facts is to just keep repeating the same emotional lies.-
Polar bears are dying, the seas are rising, its getting hotter, glaciers are almost gone.

While the year is not over, the average number of 25 tornadoes expected in December (or lower if the below normal trend holds) would suggest that 2012 will end with well below normal tornado activity.
Not just “well below normal”, we are currently at the lowest count ever recorded Year To Date, i.e. US Inflation Adjusted Annual Tornado Trend and Percentile Ranks:
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Storm Prediction Center- Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Furthermore, given that very few tornadoes usually occur in December, we are likely to end the year with a new record low.

I suppose many believe they need these kinds of prediction and perhaps they do. They are that and just that, predictions and no better then any other “educated guess”. We all need to step back a bit when using this kind of information in the first place. Almost all of these types of predictions are based on some science, some history and lots of assumptions. Unfortunately they are all to often used with an agenda. All to often that agenda is designed to assist this or that group to keep their lucrative jobs or by organizations such as insurance companies and the like to try and justify otherwise unjustified cost increases or better put unjustified additional profits.

You know, growing up an Okie, the thing I recall about tornado weather was the sudden DROP in temperature that immediately proceeded the type of storm cells that created tornados.
Extreme weather requires a clash of hot and cold — even regional heat waves and record snow falls.
The earth’s climate is balanced. Global warming would reduce the number of extreme events.

Good thing real tornadoes are down, cause the usual suspects are spinning their propaganda so hard, they are generating mini storms of their own. Wonder if all the spin in Doha shows up on the Doppler radar? That would be unprecedented, and a cause for alarm.

Let’s remember that Global Warming causes Extreme weather events…
…and this number of tornadoes is Extremely low.
So therefore it is predicted and expected within the Global Warming definition.
(this is a sarc in case you didn’t guess)

Richard Holle says:
November 29, 2012 at 12:11 am
[Comment from over on the tail end the pineapple express thread, that still fits here, I would estimate fewer than 25 tornadoes generated , more in the 12 to 18 range if my forecast maps for the 2nd 3rd of December prove to be accurate]
News flash this is just another Lunar declinational surge in the global circulation, the moon is maximum North declination today, 11-29-2012, for this 27.32 day cycle. The real kicker that causes the extra rainfall and larger storm, greater wind intensity is that we are having a heliocentric conjunction with Jupiter on December 3rd, which is adding extra ionic energy gradient across the frontal boundary.
There is a charge up period for the five days before synod conjunction, that drives positive ions from the equator into the mid-latitudes, that peaks at maximum declinational extent, then as the moon starts to move South again, it drags in the (negatively – charged) cold polar air mass to wring the moisture out of the (positively + charged) fetch of tropical air giving rise to the enhanced rainfall rates and resultant totals.
As this system moves East, Texas will probably see some of this rainfall, and by the 2nd and 3rd the position of the tropical fetch of moisture will be poised over the Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, and Mississippi, area and spawn a winter outbreak of tornadoes, just as the synod conjunction with Jupiter passes peak alignment and enhances the effect, so expect the severe weather to extend on to the East coast the 4th and 5th as well.
Most extreme weather events are the result of these outer planet enhancements of the normal lunar declinational tidal effects, which is why we are having a lull in hurricanes (no conjunctions till fall, mid winter) and severe tornado outbreaks the past couple of years with Saturn synods with the earth in March 22 2010, April 3rd 2011, April 15th 2012, and April 28th 2013, driving the intense tornado outbreaks in the springs.
CO2 has nothing to do with it, check the dates for past severe weather events with the heliocentric (Synod) conjunctions with the outer planets, much is explained and it adds a lot to the ability to forecast severe weather years in advance, try it you will like it.

Any explanation by the weather service?
The high numbers in Feb/Mar correlate with the weather that killed the apple/cherry crop up here. Perhaps with the northern plains so warm, that lowered the N/S temperature differences through the rest of the spring? Aren’t these differences supposed be causes of the tornados?
I have no idea.

Right after the outbreak last March, when the yearly total was around 200 ABOVE normal, I recall Joe Bastardi going way out on a limb and stating the rest of the year would be a dud, and the total would be below normal. I’ve got to give the guy some credit, for credit is due.

This is an EXTREME absence of tornadoes, so it’s perfectly consistent with AGW. Remember that a few years ago when Antarctica appeared to be losing ice mass, it was because of AGW. It was then determined that Antarctica was gaining ice, and that was explained by increased moisture and snowfall over the south pole caused by AGW. Now NSIDC has reported that Antarctica IS losing ice, and (again) it’s because of AGW. I know it’s a running joke that everything is due to AGW, but I wish they’d get their hysteria straight.
To borrow a line from A Man For All Seasons, one can only hope that when their heads stop spinning their face is to the front.

What this shows is that tornado frequency is not an indicator of any relevance to climate. Anyone that even mentions them is simply stating nonsense for political points. An honest scientist should look at this data, see the variability and pronounce it “non-definitive”. And ask “What else have you got?”

bill mckibben says:
November 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Oddly, despite the declaration in this article that this news would make we weep, I find that i’m opposed to tornadoes, which is why i reported on the record low of them in July, calling it ‘good news,’ albeit about the only good news of that record-setting month. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/mckibben_summer_of_weather_extremes_signifies_new_climate_normal/2568/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C’mon Bill. The article is called “the new normal” and is a litany of exaggeration and alarmism. You barely mention the low number of tornadoes, you spend the entire article wailing about all the signs of impending doom and tipping points and claiming that all the bad things you list are “the new normal. In fact you end the article with the words:
“In other words, this is no freak summer. This is how the earth works now. ”
If that is the case, the way the word works is that there has been no warming on a global basis for 16 years. Averages suck don’t they? It was warmer than usual in some parts of the world and colder in others but the average change in temp was….. ZERO.
Is there a part of ZERO that you don’t understand Bill? Is there a part of natural variability evens things out across the globe and they average to ZERO that just doesn’t make sense to you? Is the record high ice extentin the Antarctic a sign of the “new normal” that signifies an impending ice age? No it isn’t. Do you know why Bill?
Because Bill, despite cooler temps in much of the world, and despite record ice in the Antarctic, the earth is not at a tipping point toward an ice age, and we know this because THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE GLOBE HAS CHANGED BY ZERO.
There’s your new normal. ZERO.
If next summer is the “old” normal, or cooler than normal, will you apologize and retract your alarmist claptrap? Or will you focus on some other small part of the world that is experiencing hotter than normal temps and try and hype those instead, while ignoring that the average temperature change on a global basis is ZERO? Or will you switch sides and point to record ice in the Antarctic as proof of an impending ice age, again ignoring that the average temperature change is ZERO?
How will you spin ZERO next year Bill?

Thanks Bill McG
You were right in your comment at mid-year. As you are probably aware Joe Bastardi called it correct a few months earlier when things looked really different. Are you aware of his methods?
Holle has his own calculation approach and it seems to be able to predict things a year or more ahead. I am always impressed by robust predictions because I like engineering which is all about understanding the mechanisms and make reliable products.
A long time friend of mine who harasses me on another blog thinks that if we keep the CO2 level down to 350 ppm we will avert great and even humanity threatening disasters and I am really sure he got that idea from you.
I would like to know from you how you concluded that 350 is the right number. All available evidence suggests that lower CO2 means more frequent and more power tornadoes, especially the latter category. All records save property damage (for obvious reasons of an ever-advancing civilization) are in the past and we don’t even have a long set of records. All we know for sure is a warming world means fewer and less powerful hurricanes and storms and tornadoes. I am sure you have also seen the hurricane power chart.
So it will interest me to know how you came to the opposite conclusion. Any “model” that matched the past would not project a reversal in tornado numbers. In fact from a thermodynamic perspective the energy driver. – temperature gradients – are reduced in a warming world.
Thanks in advance.

I just check the Weather Channel for the radar and local reports. They run program after program about CO2 and climate change to an unsuspecting crowd. They just state it as fact that all weather now is caused by man and those smokestacks with steam coming out of them. They did a history of the weather channel not long ago, but didn’t mention John Coleman, I wonder why.

I think the correct answer was provided above by numbatdog:
“When will you get it that facts dont matter anymore? The Left’s answer to inconvenient facts is to just keep repeating the same emotional lies – Polar bears are dying, the seas are rising, it’s getting hotter, glaciers are almost gone.” Etc.
Too true – we can see that it is the case as we read, write, or listen to the Majesty of the Left.

bill mckibben says: November 30, 2012 at 8:46 pmOddly, despite the declaration in this article that this news would make we weep, I find that i’m opposed to tornadoes, which is why i reported on the record low of them in July, calling it ‘good news,’
I commend you on your openness to the facts.albeit about the only good news of that record-setting month.http://e360.yale.edu/feature/mckibben_summer_of_weather_extremes_signifies_new_climate_normal/2568/
Your article seems to be based on many anecdotes from small geographic regions, e.g.:

“North American summer actually started two days before the official end of winter this year, when the town of Winner, South Dakota turned in a 94-degree temperature reading”
“While Tropical Storm Debby, the earliest fourth-named storm ever, was drenching Florida, fires were breaking out in New Mexico and Colorado that would become the largest and most expensive in those states’ histories. As the Front Range of the Rockies set all-time temperature records, horrible wild fires obliterated homes in Colorado Springs and Fort Collins.”

If the the contiguous U.S. is just “1.58% of the total surface area of the Earth”, of what relevance is Winner, South Dakota to the “Global” Warming debate?
Furthermore, what is the significances of Tropical Storm Debby being “the earliest fourth-named storm ever” and”drenching Florida”, when the data available on Tropical Cyclones seems to show that there’s been a decreace in Tropical Cyclone activity recently:
Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)y – 1971 to Present
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="564"] Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Global Tropical Cyclone Frequency- 1971 to Present
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="564"] Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="564"] Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate.com – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
US Extremes in Landfalling Tropical Systems – 1910 to Present – Annual
[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="578"] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) – Click the pic to view at source[/caption]
Can you offer any data sources that show a significant increase in Tropical Cyclone frequency, strength, season, etc.?

Strong tornado count (>EF2) basically has a long term, negative correlation to northern hemisphere SST. Though the conditions that create tornadoes are not that simple, so don’t expect this to work on a year to year basis, like all things in climate there are decadal scale patterns too:http://i50.tinypic.com/2w3z0p4.png
(Note tornado count is inverted in this graph)
Tornado count on this inverted plot peaked around year 2000. There is a clear trend towards more tornadoes. This is yet another indicator that we have entered a cooling phase since around 2000.
Expect more proof of “extreme weather” next year from weeping Bill whether there are more or less tornadoes, it will always the “abnormal” “new normal” and a sign of impending doom.
Meanwhile, in the real world:
For the US, the current cooling will bring more tornadoes and less hurricanes.

Just the facts says: Can you offer any data sources that show a significant increase in Tropical Cyclone frequency, strength, season, etc.?http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
This is basically similar to the NOAA US _landfalling_ hurricanes plot but shows the link to North Atlantic SST. It shows the same thing as Ryan Maue’s plots but on a broader time-scale.
Compare this to the previous tornado plot to see how the two phenomena act in roughly opposing ways to temperature.

“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, told the website. “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”
Mods I thought Anthony might be interested in this quote from Weepy Bill even though it is concerning a pipe line. I found it on Fox news web site.

Back in April 2011 Dr. Roy Spencer thought Warmists were joking when they tried to link more tornadoes and global warming.

“MORE Tornadoes from Global Warming? That’s a Joke, Right?”
“…….If there is one weather phenomenon global warming theory does NOT predict more of, it would be severe thunderstorms and tornadoes.
Tornadic thunderstorms do not require tropical-type warmth. In fact, tornadoes are almost unheard of in the tropics, despite frequent thunderstorm activity…………..
But contrasting air mass temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring. …….”http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/04/more-tornadoes-from-global-warming-thats-a-joke-right/

Never let observations get in the way of a good story. Never let facts get in the way of a good story. Always blame global warming for things people don’t like or find ‘unusual’ at certain times of the year. Blame the weather for things people like or find ‘normal’ at certain times of the year.
When are these scaremongers going to give up with the misinformation campaign against the public?

I have never thought deeply about the weather or the climate until AGW came along. Looking at the graph of US tornadoes comparing 2011 and 2012 it is striking that the average is maintained.
At the beginning of this year we had “drought” conditions in the UK. Water companies were panicking and putting in place hosepipe bans, we were told that a dirty car was to be proud of, the Met Office were telling us all that AGW was to blame. After the wettest summer on record the resevoirs are overflowing and all the fields are waterlogged.
This is why there are averages, they are just that – averages!

…a United Nations survey which suggested “innovative” ways to fund global development projects…
“Indeed, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change mandates only that higher-income countries make specific targeted reductions, as those countries are responsible for most of the man-made concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and are best able to bear the economic burden,” the survey said.
“In this vein, a tax of $25 per ton of CO2 emitted by developed countries is expected to raise $250 billion per year in global tax revenues,” the survey continued….
In August, Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington introduced a bill that would create a carbon emissions permitting system, placing an initial maximum price of $18.75 per ton of carbon which would then steeply rise to $131.25 per ton of carbon over a decade.
The Managed Carbon Price Act of 2012 aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent of 2005 levels within 42 years of its enactment, and the Treasury Department would issue permits which are not allowed to be traded. Permits could only be purchased from the Treasury or refunded by them
The proceeds from the tax going to a trust fund where 25 percent would go towards deficit reduction and 75 percent would be spent to offset price increases for the public….
The American people care about the deficit and they’re worried about climate change–and we can fix both without hurting the economy,” McDermott said

I wonder how much of that tax is going to go to the UN. In Australia it is 10%

[Q] There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?
—–
[Al Gore] I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.http://grist.org/article/roberts2/

OT. May be of interest to the solar aficionados
The SIDC’s November SSN = 61.4, same as the September’s (61.5) and few points above the October’s (53.3).http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
According to the data from the WSO, the solar magnetic field reversed its polarity recently, signifying SS24 max within a year or so.

The average is simply the mean of all the possible realisations. Reality is always highly variable. And if you were living in an 11 year, or 30 year, or 80 year, or 200 year or 1000 year or 2200 year cycle, or combinations of these, the long term average would still be zero. The problem with long cycles and short measurement periods (say 150 years of semi-reliable temperature data) is that you cannot tell the difference between an upswing on a cycle with zero mean (stationary) and a trend. Environmental alarmists take every change from the average to indicate disaster, whereas in reality every year will show a difference from the average, because by definition the average is simply…the average. Every year is gonna be either above or below. If you don’t believe me, try rolling dice.

Anthony, why do you insist on using words like ‘weepy’ to describe people. It simply demeans both you, your point of view and your great site. Stooping as low as your opponents is never a good way to win any argument. Why don’t you try taking the moral high ground and focus on the argument not the person. You may feel some short term satisfaction in taking such an approach but when you look back at your writing in 20 years time you may very well regret it. Of course it’s your site and you can do as you please, but it really doesn’t paint you in a great light.

Will Bill Mckibben have the courage to respond to those who responded to him? Stayed tuned to this station to find out the intriguing answer to this and many more questions on today’s episode of ” Alarmist Hit and Run”.

“But contrasting air mass temperatures is the key. Active tornado seasons in the U.S. are almost always due to unusually COOL air persisting over the Midwest and Ohio Valley longer than it normally does as we transition into spring. …….”
You might find a correlation between cooler periods with increases in tornadoes. As cooler Canadian air masses persist to collide with warm Gulf air mass into late spring and summer, the chances of nasty of nasty lines of T-storms producing tornadoes will also increase. My guess.
Imagine pouring cold water into warm water, not much of a show, but dropping liquid N2 into the warm water exhibits the nastiness of the combination of extremes. Same with the onset of tornadoes, or at least similar. Don’t try this at home, I am an expert, and only experts get to have fun. 🙂

Is it really that inconvenient to live with no tornadoes? I knew America was a weird place, but this phrasing is just too funny.
Otherwise the missing tornadoes may be hiding in the pipeline, just to come back later in vengeance for our carboniferous sins. It is a scary scenario, one can almost feel esoteric energy, unmeasurable to frail technical devices building up and up an up until it breaks through to eradicate human worms from the face of mother Gaia.

Berényi Péter says:
December 1, 2012 at 8:48 am
Is it really that inconvenient to live with no tornadoes? I knew America was a weird place, but this phrasing is just too funny.
Otherwise the missing tornadoes may be hiding in the pipeline, just to come back later in vengeance for our carboniferous sins. It is a scary scenario, one can almost feel esoteric energy, unmeasurable to frail technical devices building up and up an up until it breaks through to eradicate human worms from the face of mother Gaia.
=====================================================================
Missing heat. Missing tornadoes. Missing hurricanes. What are they missing?

Richard Lawson says:
December 1, 2012 at 5:50 amAnthony, why do you insist on using words like ‘weepy’ to describe people.
I believe weepy bill earned his much-deserved nickname at Copenhagen, where hecried a lot. They are the crocodile tears of a rabid Believer, and only for show, to, he hopes, galvanize his fellow enviro-whackos to action.

P. Solar says:
December 1, 2012 at 6:15 amhttp://climaterealists.com/?id=10681
cherry picking. On what basis were these periods chosen? If you have the data to do a plot ,plot it all, not the bits that make a point.
cfhttp://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
Do you actually believe that in 1860-70 there was a global network of observers recording cyclones, by whatever name called and calculating the ACE for each year?

Somewhere, weepy Bill McKibben is weeping and Al Gore is raging, because they won’t be able to say “2012, the hottest year ever, caused more tornadoes” So much for “dirty weather” Heh.
———————————
No worries. Contrary facts have never slowed them down.

bill mckibben;
I’m in Omaha, where last week 99.69% of the state was in severe drought, but this week it’s up to 100%. >>>>
Proving that you still cannot understand that an anecdotal remark about a tiny portion of the planet is meaningless.
Can you explain how 16 years of ZERO change in the global temperature cause a drought in one area representing less than 1% of the globe?
There’s increased flooding in many parts of the world this year such as remarked on upthread. Do you suppose that the ZERO change in global temperature over the last 16 years caused this too?
Which is it? Did the ZERO temp increase cause increased flooding or increased drought?
Did the ZERO temp increase cause both less ice in the Arctic and more ice in the Antarctic?
There were several points of fact and science that were made to you in this thread, and your only response is to whine that Anthony made a mistake regarding your twitter feed? That’s it? Confronted with a list of errors YOU made all you can do is deflect? That’s all you got? A bit of yipping about a minor computer setting? But on science and facts…. ZERO.

bill mckibben says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:24 am
Cause Omaha has never in it’s history experienced drought before. Try again. Huffington post? At least you responded (sort of).
David Jojnes says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:14 am
Do you not understand the depth of weather records kept by naval officers earlier than that? Peoples lives and livelihoods depended on weather information. The Hudson’s Bay Company was doing global experiments even earlier. Study your history.

Gunga Din;
Missing heat. Missing tornadoes. Missing hurricanes. What are they missing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Missing increased drought index (the planetary average matters, not weepy bill’s anecdotal evidence), the tropospheric hot spot, accelerating sea level rise, increased temps…. all missing.
You know what else is missing? The ability of Bill McKibben to come up with a response other than “oh yeah? well Anthony made a mistake about my twitter feed”.
Go get ‘um Bill. That’ll make you look like you know what you are talking about.
Keep coming around, you make a great poster child for the inability of the warmists to spout anything other than excuses.

But, but davidmhoffer you don’t understand.
It is unprecedented in forever and ever to have 16 years with nearly no global warming. It’s “weird” . This kind of extremely UN-extreme variation is totally new , it’s the new normal.
This is _precisely_ what the models predicted (once correct for TSI, volcanoes, El Nino and La Nina, and ocean currents that they don’t account for).
In fact, once the lack of warming is accounted for , it’s worse than we thought.

Bruce Cobb says:
December 1, 2012 at 9:23 am
I’m fully aware of why Anthony uses the ‘weepy’ adjective. I understand that Bill’s tears may well have been somewhat crocodilian. My point is that using such terminology does not advance his/our argument in any way.
Getting personal in this way both detracts from the argument and undermines the sceptical case. I strongly believe that sticking to the science and avoiding ad hominem is the best way forward.
I’ve been following this great site for many years. I’ve learned a lot from from Anthony’s hard work and dedication and I am very grateful. If we stay focused we can win. If we get personal it only exposes our soft underbelly. What’s the point of doing that other than creating some short term, shallow satisfaction.

@mkelly
“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for Secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” Bill McKibben, a writer and founder of the activist groups 350.org and Tar Sands Action, told the website. “The State Department has been rife with collusion with the Canadian pipeline builders, and it’s really distressing to have any sense that that might continue to go on.”
+++++++++
One of the main Canadian activist groups in Vancouver admitted on national radio they had accepted $3.6m by US funders to generate opposition to the pipeline from Alberta to the BC Coast. The timeline works out to $17,000 a week for a few years. They had no shame admitting they were shilling for foreign interests, whipping up the local populations in towns and reserves to serve some US interest. Is Bill and 350.org involved or perhaps some other group?
As the US apparently doesn’t want more Canadian oil via new pipelines it seems reasonable they should not concern themselves where it is sold. Now there is talk about piping it to the East Coast to ‘supply Eastern Canada’ which is the same as saying, we will ship it East if agitators and shills prevent us shipping it West. The middle of Canada has no problem taxing the pipelines across their land (it is called linear property taxes). If the BC government doesn’t want it, no problem.

JohnH says: “This is an EXTREME absence of tornadoes, so it’s perfectly consistent with AGW. Remember that a few years ago when Antarctica appeared to be losing ice mass, it was because of AGW. It was then determined that Antarctica was gaining ice, and that was explained by increased moisture and snowfall over the south pole caused by AGW. Now NSIDC has reported that Antarctica IS losing ice, and (again) it’s because of AGW. I know it’s a running joke that everything is due to AGW, but I wish they’d get their hysteria straight.”
When the Warmists noticed the world wasn’t warming, they switched brands to “Climate Change.” Now they say CO2 causes weird weather. So, if it’s hot, it’s CO2. If it’s cold, it’s CO2. A tornado? CO2. Drought? CO2. Floods? CO2. A hurricane, simoom, foehn, or Santa Ana? CO2. A two problems with that: (1) They have an unfalsifiable proposition and (2) There’s no mechanism for such behavior. They’ve totally abandoned any pretense of science. It’s totally propaganda without substance.

Just like you I also like good news.
I have just 3 questions:
1) Would you agree that it’s good news that there has been statistically insignificant global warming over the last 16 years in the face of ever rising co2?
2) Would you think it good news if AGW theory was falsified?
3) Do you think that we are within a couple of years of this falsification?

Bigger minds look at the massive benefits of higher CO2 and lower energy costs and warmer weather worldwide and rejoince that the earth will be ok in the future.
Mankind – worshiping the small minds who desire the immediate death of millions and an early shorter life for billions by needlessly restricting energy development – will be far worse.

The problem with alot of climatologists on the agw side is they are closed minded weather voyeurs, only peaking in when it delights them enough to try to prove their point. They dare not mention the severe cold that is engulfing other areas of the world, nor understand that the US may go into the same kind of pattern Dec 15-Jan 14, though if we do, I am sure a) an excuse that involves warming or climate change will come up and b) we will hear about some place that is warm. They obviously have not looked at the past facts of what the weather has done in similar cycles ( example the 1950s) when the pdo flipped and there was onslaughts of heavy rain and snow in the northwest US drought and heat in our summers and hurricanes on the east coast. Nor will they even say boo about the severe cold that is overtaking larger areas than the US already, the far east, Europe into now Asia and nw North America While I dig in and look at everything they look at, the more you look at it, the more you realize how lacking their ideas are, I realize that they dont even look at, or if they do, simply ignore , anything that goes against them. Sea level rise? Since the gulf was at one time covering all the lower Mississippi valley, that is certainly something that can happen again. so much for your 8 inch rise or whatever since the sunspot cycle started ramping up after the little ice age. Arctic melting. lets see what happens when the AMO flips in 5-10 years. And by the way you need not look any further for the answer than Alaska and Europe. These people should be dragged outside in the cold that is making life miserable, and be made to explain what happened to the canary in the coal mine in Alaska now that the PDO has flipped and one brutal winter after another has started, and perhaps the most absurd of all the comments, though given some on hurricanes I have heard, its tough to say what is the most ignorant, that snow and cold would soon be a thing of the past in europe ( try telling them that now, its the 4th winter in a row of a major period of severe cold) Given they have no clue as to how the climate cycle works naturally, or could not have taken a class in it.. they run to blame warming for the cooling. And all the while, massive amounts of people are meant to suffer as economies are handcuffed by draconian laws that are fighting ghosts, while lining peoples pockets with the money of the people that are most affected.. the workers.
And by the way, cut with the natural variability excuse. Because that argument is nonsense. What are you trying to say, that if co2 was not as high as it is, we would be in an ice age?
These people are like children that have to have their way, have to make sure that feelings are more important than facts. Those of us brought up in the real world where right and wrong matter and jobs are on the line, understand that. So at the risk of hurting the feelings of the climate voyeurs let me leave you with this charthttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg
read it and weep, you are dead wrong, and most of us dont want to see this planet thrown into the misery your regressive. NOT PROGRESSIVE ideas will lead too.
As blackouts start in the Arctic cold in europe you think about that in your still warm home, and face the facts as to who cares more about their fellow man

WEEKEND ROUNDUP
In which Stephen Harper destroys the Earth
Gosh, it’s great to see hyperbole and the Toronto Star‘s Christopher Hume getting along so well after all these years. “Though eminently forgettable,” he writes, “the recent federal budget reminds us why the environment is doomed.” Streamlining the environmental review process and trying to limit charitable organizations’ advocacy operations “are not simply a means to an end,” he continues, “but perhaps to the end” — of the environment, of Canada, of days. And Canadians, colonial-minded simpletons that we are, will cheer on these pillagers of Mother Earth as they “rush to pump oil down to the gaping maw of the U.S., the most gluttonous nation on Earth.” (We thought Canadians consumed more energy per capita, but we’re clearly mistaken.) Hume finally concludes with a scare quote from Bill McKibben — whose own hyperbole, the Ottawa Citizen‘s Dan Gardner recently suggested, played a significant role in people tuning out climate change issue entirely.http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/02/chris-selleys-full-pundit-fight-night-in-ottawa/http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/articles/item/266-the-most-dangerous-hyperbole-in-the-history-of-the-world

The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.
Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can’t afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day…. link

A household is defined as being fuel poor if it has to spend 10 per cent or more of its income on paying to keep the home adequately warm.
In 2003 the number of households hit a low of two million, but it climbed to four million in 2007 and then 4.5 million in 2008, the figures for which were published today by the Department of Energy & Climate Change.This figure suggests that one in six households were fuel poor during 2008, a year which saw energy bills shoot up by 45 per cent…. link

Mean while the World Bank who is crying THE SKY IS FALLING, it has increased loans to build COAL fired plants from $100 million in 2005 to $4,270 million in 2010 link
The USA funds 1 in five dollars of these loans. So as our coal powered plants are shut down our tax go dollars go to build new COAL PLANTS in India, China and other countries!!!!

P. Solar says:
December 1, 2012 at 6:15 amhttp://climaterealists.com/?id=10681
cherry picking. On what basis were these periods chosen? If you have the data to do a plot ,plot it all, not the bits that make a point.
cfhttp://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
=============================================
P, are you really asserting that you’re displaying actual data? The graphic you’re showing is utter fantasy.

From bill mckibben on December 1, 2012 at 9:24 am:At any rate, that’s all from weepy me today–I’m in Omaha, where last week 99.69% of the state was in severe drought, but this week it’s up to 100%.http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought.gov/202/area_drought_information?mode=2&state=NE
“Severe” is #3 of the 5 designations of drought. For the week of 11/27, currently 100% of the state of Nebraska is in the D2 to D4 range, “severe” to “exceptional”.
As it was three months ago (8/28), at the start of the water year (9/25/2012)… Last week (11/20) only being 99.69% was a slight improvement.
Tables: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DM_tables.htm?NE
You can see the changeover to D2-D4 range came pretty quick, from only 4.94% on 6/19 to 100% on 7/24. Bad bout of weather. This year was the worst, but as seen in the tables which only go back to 2000, 2002 had a similar spike.
From Curious George on December 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm:Bill McKibben – I have been trying to find out, 1. What definition of “drought” the US Drought Monitor uses, 2. How they measure its intensity. So far unsuccessfully. I’ll appreciate your help.
Much searching later, I found here a passing description:

The U.S. Drought Monitor is unique, blending numeric measures of drought and experts’ best judgment into a single map every week. It started in 1999 as a federal, state, and academic partnership, growing out of a Western Governors’ Association initiative to provide timely and understandable scientific information on water supply and drought for policymakers.
The Monitor is produced by a rotating group of authors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Drought Mitigation Center. It incorporates review from a group of 250 climatologists, extension agents, and others across the nation. Each week the author revises the previous map based on rain, snow and other events, observers’ reports of how drought is affecting crops, wildlife and other indicators. Authors balance conflicting data and reports to come up with a new map every Wednesday afternoon. It is released the following Thursday morning.

As it combines numbers with “best judgement”, the levels of drought are “informed opinions”. As there is a subjective component, good luck finding those definitions.

Its the 50s Bill look at what happened the last cold PDO, warm amo. How do you not see this is well within the realm of what happens, except THERE IS MORE COOLING IN THE PACIFIC AND THE CHANGE TO COLDER IN NW N AMERICAN AND FAR EAST IS EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED THAN PREVIOUS FLIP. Would you please look at the past and get a clue. Its astounding you spout this stuff when you can see the same thing in the last climate cycle of cold pdo warm amo in the late 40s and 50s. You could not have looked, and if you have , you should be rattled at how severe the cold is so quick in Europe ( this is year 4 ) China and Alaska
Look at the drought and hear and the east coast hurricanes, Your position is absurd and relies on ignorance of past events

Hey Bill!
Bill McKibben!
Have you seen ZERO?
THIS is what ZERO looks like:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/
Can you explain to us Bill, in your own words, how the exact same temperatures we have today as we had 16 years ago caused all the weather you insist on weeping about? C’mon Bill, give it a shot. Use grown up words and explanations please, none of this appeal to emotion that earned you your nickname.
Please explain also how, in that same time period, CO2 went from 364 ppm to 391 ppm without changing the temperature. Again, use big people words, just the facts, no weeping, no pointing to one spot on earth and screaming look! look! warming! Just the data sir, and global data.
And no, it isn’t hiding in the oceans, we have the Argo buoys carpeting the ocean and they’re not detecting squat. No, it isn’t in the ocean depths below the Argo buoys because it would have to pass by the Argo buoys to get there, and they’d detect that. No, it isn’t more aerosols from China because their aerosol production is a fraction of what we cleaned up in the western world over the last few decades. Remember when major cities in Europe and North America had stand up comics zipping one liners like “I shot an arrow into the sky, and it stuck there” and “I’m not sick, it’s the smog, I inhaled a piece”? Do we have jokes like that anymore? No! We cleaned up ten times what China is putting out.
So explain Bill. Please. With real grown up words, facts, and reasoning.
I bet you’ll ignore me, because you cannot answer. You’ve got nothing. Bupkiss. Nada. ZERO.
Yes, you’ve got ZERO.

David Jojnes says: http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
“Do you actually believe that in 1860-70 there was a global network of observers recording cyclones, by whatever name called and calculating the ACE for each year?”
No I don’t, so I don’t give much weight to the divergence of the correlation in that early part of the graph. That does not remove the striking correlation in the rest of the data which are more reliable.
Neither does this distract from the point I was making about climaterealist (really?) cropping the data to produce the misleading result that is the complete opposite of reality when you look at the full dataset. That is simply rigging the data to support a mistaken and unfounded political point he thinks he has to make.
Yes, there are more hurricanes now and that is closely linked to warmer SST. Exactly as was the case in the 30’s and in tune with the lack of hurricanes in the colder 70’s.

P. Solar says: December 1, 2012 at 1:05 amJust the facts says: Can you offer any data sources that show a significant increase in Tropical Cyclone frequency, strength, season, etc.?http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png
This is basically similar to the NOAA US _landfalling_ hurricanes plot but shows the link to North Atlantic SST. It shows the same thing as Ryan Maue’s plots but on a broader time-scale.
David Jones says: December 1, 2012 at 10:14 amDo you actually believe that in 1860-70 there was a global network of observers recording cyclones, by whatever name called and calculating the ACE for each year?
According to NOAA;

“ACE” = Accumulated Cyclone Energy – An index that combines the numbers of systems, how long they existed and how intense they became. It is calculated by squaring the maximum sustained surface wind in the system every six hours and summing it up for the season. It is expressed in 104 kt2

“Why should we have any confidence in Accumulated Cyclone Energy estimates prior to the development of accurate measurement capabilities?”
Define “accurate”.
Sure. recent measurements are more accurate. That does not mean the rest of the record has to be totally ignored. The only real deviation of the two variables in the 20th century was the WWII period, when under-sampling of tropical zone is obvious and well documented. [Vecchi and Knutson 2008,2011]
There are also issues with the SST record which has had of a lot of questionable “corrections” applied but one of the things this comparison does in showing such close correlation , even on shorter time-scales, is it gives a bit more confidence that there is actually some clear climate information in there despite all the data collection issues.
I’d actually have a bit more confidence in recent ACE calculations than in recent SST which has been subject to constant manipulation.
Everyone has to make their own choice of what they chose to accept in all this mess but I think it’s hard to refute the clear linkage between sea temperature and ACE. It is actually pretty much accepted meteorology as to where hurricanes get their energy.

Richard Lawson says:
December 1, 2012 at 12:03 pm
You can’t just ignore the political side of the argument, which very much includes personal attacks, which the Warmists use continually. The battle has to be fought on both fronts. It is useful to keep reminding weepy bill, and others of his ilk, of his intellectual dishonesty in using an Appeal to Emotion in his efforts to persuade people to believe the Warmist propaganda.

Well I’m afraid Bruce you and I will have to disagree on this. You seem to confuse political with personal, or you are suggesting that these two concepts are interchangeable. Resorting to the lowest form of attack because our opponents do is poor form. Let’s keep the discussion out of the gutter because I think we will gain more support as a result. Behaving like school children is not the way forward.

P. Solar says: December 2, 2012 at 1:23 amDefine “accurate”.
“the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness. ”http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuracySure. recent measurements are more accurate. That does not mean the rest of the record has to be totally ignored. The only real deviation of the two variables in the 20th century was the WWII period, when under-sampling of tropical zone is obvious and well documented. [Vecchi and Knutson 2008,2011]
Per “A REANALYSIS OF THE 1944-1953 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASONS-THE FIRST DECADE OF AIRCRAFT RECONNAISSANCE”, Andrew B. Hagen, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, Thesis, 2010:

“The main historical archive of all tropical storms and hurricanes in the North Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico from 1851-present is known as HURDAT. This official database of historical Atlantic tropical cyclones (TCs) is maintained by the National Hurricane Center (NHC). The original database of 6-hourly tropical cyclone positions and intensities was assembled in the 1960s in support of the Apollo space program to help provide statistical TC track forecasting guidance (Landsea et al. 2008; Jarvinen et al. 1984; Neumann, personal communication).”
“The accuracy of the HURDAT database is important to many; however, the original database contains many systematic biases and random errors (Landsea et al. 2008). Therefore, a reanalysis of the HURDAT database is necessary. The Atlantic Hurricane Reanalysis Project (AHRP) is an ongoing effort to correct the errors in HURDAT, and to provide as accurate of a HURDAT database as is possible with utilization of all available data. For this thesis, HURDAT is reanalyzed for the period 1944-1953, the first decade of the “aircraft reconnaissance era.” The track and intensity of each existing tropical cyclone in HURDAT is reassessed, and previously unrecognized tropical cyclones are noticed, analyzed, and recommended to the National Hurricane Center Best Track Change Committee (NHCBTCC) for inclusion into HURDAT (existing TCs may be removed from the database as well if analyses indicate evidence that no tropical storm existed). Changes to the number of tropical storms, hurricanes, major hurricanes, accumulated cyclone energy (ACE), and U.S. landfalling hurricanes are recommended for most of the years of the decade studied. An error analysis for the decade is also provided. It is noted that all changes to HURDAT mentioned in this thesis are preliminary and have not yet been approved by the NHCBTCC.”
“Hundreds of track and intensity changes to HURDAT are recommended to the NHCBTCC. Although a significant percentage of these recommendations call for major track and intensity alterations, the overwhelming majority of the recommendations are for minor revisions to HURDAT. However, there were numerous cases for which no changes or minor changes were analyzed due to a lack of available observations since changes to HURDAT cannot be made unless there is enough evidence to make a change. These cases likely contain errors larger than the average error estimates in HURDAT for the decade.”
“This research suggests that for many cases, the intensities listed in HURDAT (at least through 1953, and likely beyond that year) are not nearly as reliable as intensity estimates today.” http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ahagenF10.pdf

Sure. recent measurements are more accurate. That does not mean the rest of the record has to be totally ignored. The only real deviation of the two variables in the 20th century was the WWII period, when under-sampling of tropical zone is obvious and well documented. [Vecchi and Knutson 2008,2011]
Not ignored, but certainly looked very skeptically. The magnitude of the recent increase you cite in the data could be an “artifact of recent technological advances and better observational capabilities.” ie. recent:

studies, such as Landsea (2007) and Landsea et al. (2010) show that recent technological advances and improved observational capabilities have allowed better detection of TCs. Although the two latter studies focus mainly on TC frequency instead of intensity, the main concept from those studies can be applied here. The observational network during the late 1940s was not as complete as it is today, and better technological advances for monitoring TCs (satellites- geostationary, polar orbiting, microwave, scatterometer; dense coastal radar network; dropsondes, SFMR, and better aircraft radars, etc.) were invented after the late 1940s. These improvements in technology and observational capabilities with time are nicely illustrated by McAdie et al. (2009) and are depicted in Figure 2. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ahagenF10.pdf

There are also issues with the SST record which has had of a lot of questionable “corrections” applied but one of the things this comparison does in showing such close correlation , even on shorter time-scales, is it gives a bit more confidence that there is actually some clear climate information in there despite all the data collection issues.
I am not sure that a correlation between two erroneous data sets, with lots of “corrections” applied, should instill any confidence in the accuracy of either.I’d actually have a bit more confidence in recent ACE calculations than in recent SST which has been subject to constant manipulation.
I agree in the sense that ACE measurement capabilities probably improved faster than our SST measurement capabilities, i.e.:

Prior to the 1980s measurements of sea surface temperature were derived from instruments on shorelines, ships and buoys. The first automated method of gathering sst was by measuring water flowing through the input ports of ocean faring ships. While this method obtained a significant quantity of useful SST data there were some shortcomings. The depth of the input ports of different ships can vary greatly from ship to ship. In a stratified ocean these different depths can have different temperatures. This method also resulted in rigorous sampling along major shipping routes but a dearth of information about the vast majority of the world’s oceans.
Since the 1980’s most of the information about global SST has come from satellite observations. Instruments like the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on board (MODIS) onboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites orbit the Earth approximately 14 times per day, enabling it to gathering more SST data in 3 months than all other combined SST measurements taken before the advent of satellites. http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaSurfaceTemperature

Prior to the satellite era, I am not sure that we should place any confidence in the accuracy of the SST data.Everyone has to make their own choice of what they chose to accept in all this mess but I think it’s hard to refute the clear linkage between sea temperature and ACE. It is actually pretty much accepted meteorology as to where hurricanes get their energy.
Not arguing that there is a linkage between sea temperature and ACE, but I am very skeptical of the veracity of both data sets.

Well Richard, the politics of CAGW most certainly is personal. You choose to stick your head in the sand and plug your ears to that fact, and that is your choice. The “stick to the science” refrain is one that gets bandied about fairly often by concern trolls. That should tell you something, but it probably won’t.

Well, itz been a few days, Bill McGibben’s excuse that he was taking the rest of the weekend off has expired. Number of answers so far to the many legitimate questions and points made to him?
ZERO.
When faced with facts that demonstrate that your position is wrong, a fool maintains his position anyway. A man stands up and admits his error. A coward runs away.

Dear Mr. McKibben, It seems we have a good bit in common. First, please continue to take time to participate here. At least some of us appreciate it, and openness and honesty is always better than sniping from the weeds. It seems we have a fair bit in common. I’d be happy to make your acquaintance if ever it was convenient. I’d also like to thank you for taking the “weepy” in stride. Good to know it doesn’t knock you down. It is good for all of us to remember that emotions are simply human. I don’t find a problem in tearing up over things that are emotionally important to us. Of course, I consider it dangerous to allow emotions to overrule our reason. As to drought, being in Oklahoma keeps that in perspective. While the dust of the dust bowl was exacerbated by lack of knowledge in the new farming practices, those years of drought cannot be attributed to human causation. It was far worse then (and in the 50s too). Keep in mind that us young people, Bill, have to remember that life is much longer than ourselves and our immediate family. And, I’ll leave you with this: Cold kills; warmer is better.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy